- JABBERWOCK xeno
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
Posted by: paulmarv
In response to hotshot revan II,
This policy does not by very necessity exclude automatically Halo Legends from the True Halo Canon; it is objective and open-minded just like I am. You can accuse me of not knowing Halo "lore" (I would take you up on this any day, but that's a different topic) but the fact is that this won't diminish the amount of Canon I know that I know. It is because of this knowledge of the Halo Canon that I dislike Halo Legends, but, since this thread is about my canon policy and not its specific application, I will continue this discussion about my personal opinion of Halo Legends via the PM system. And I will add that if you had read my OP, you would know why such statements like "perfectly intact with Halo canon" are ambiguous, un-constructive, ignorant. If you believe the Halo Canon to be that canon demonstrated in Halo Legends, then Halo Legends in your mind must be intact with the Halo Canon! It's like saying the number 1 and the value evinced by the word "one" are the same. It is a useless tautology. But, I cannot expect you to avoid this because you hadn't read the rest of my post when you wrote this, and therefore I apologize if I've been too terse in my reply. I appreciate that you are now reading the rest.
I believe you mean to say that "343i didn't give us garbage". Upon reading Summa Canonica, you will have found a portion where I concede to the (what I think are rare) instances when 343 has done a good or at least better job in manifesting the Halo Canon, and moreover I would tend to agree with those two had I to select two of their best publications. That does not overwrite their previous record.
In response to the latter part of Jabberwock's post,
Please read the section in the Summa entitled "A NOTE ON CANONICAL HIERARCHY"; it seems to be most relevant to the question you first posted. And although I have already stated that this thread is not about specific analyses for each canonical publication but about this canon policy, I do not think I am straying too far to respond to your edit; you ask good questions. You know my personal stance on Legends; we can debate that with the PM system. Reach must be taken as canon but with a mature understanding of the Third dictum of the catechism for this canon policy entitled "Reasonable Manifestation" - I even include the quote from the Collector's edition somewhere in there that basically places Reach in a canonical position to be overwritten by others, but to provide some solid-basework and perhaps some actual and true manifestation of real canon, but with this ingenious canonical mechanism that allows Bungie to make a fun and playable game concurrently.
You then go on to justify the canonicity of new artifacts - I think that's great. That is the type of specific debate and discussion I have said many times is a good thing and should be had for each canonical publication on a case-by-case basis. I don't agree about Legends, and I should be able to back that up with evidence and keep an open mind about it - and you the same. This canon policy is designed for such discussion; it provides logically proven, established, and discussed standards and extrapolations that we can use in such debates to back up statements and get rid of foolish ones. The ultimate purpose is to find the True Halo Canon. I stated these things at least once in my OP - read the Overture and Purpose for a more detailed version of what I just said.
In response to Xvise66 and the former part of Jabberwock's post,
Your personal insult is not on topic and therefore will not deserve my conversation in this thread; please deliver your childish personal attacks to me via the PM system as to not break the forum rules.
In response to TedToaster22 and the nature of the former part of Jabberwock's post that was obscured by his personal attacks and insults,
I have answered to the complaint of length and allegedly unnecessary vocabulary to an extent far greater than one would expect. I have repeatedly provided defenses for my choice of words and have explained why I wrote the way I did. But if that wasn't enough, I came back and constructed a simplification of what I said in the OP but in simple, short language. Your persistence with the complaint that has already been addressed indicates to me that you are a newcomer to this thread who started to read a bit of the OP and then carelessly proceeded to air your complaint (which may very well be valid; I'm all for constructive criticism) without paying the slightest attention to the bulk of my original post or the posts about your complaint that have ensued the original posting. Please actually read this thread and then provide new and unaddressed reasons to back up your complaint.
In response to DrMod,
I could have addressed this comment with my above paragraph, but I decided that it deserves special attention. Nothing that I wrote is "gratuitous"; I can explain and reveal the reason for every single word and its choice. But I am fascinated by the specific nature of this accusation that I haven't really heard before. If you had read the Second Addendum, you would see why I chose to write my OP in English. Seems like a pretty common-sense decision. I wrote and am writing in English, not Latin. Now let us examine all instances of Latin in my use here. I needed a specific title - a proper noun - for reference, just like "Halo" is a Latin word and now a name for something. There were a few places within the actual text where I inserted Latin phrases; such phrases are used often in English to denote a concept, e.g., i.e., et. al., e.t.c. So far I have everything covered except for the three places I used Latin in the "Table of Contents", if you will, at the very beginning of the OP to designate the three parts. Although it is apparently not so obvious, I thought my obvious and somewhat humorous and un-serious yet somewhat serious in constructing the theme of the post throw/allusion to "Summa Theologica" would be a nice little detail that might spark a chuckle or two but, for serious purpose, helps establish the theme of what I'm writing. (Not that this too similar; this is one guy on a long rant on a video-game developer's website-forum) This thematic addition was advanced by my threefold partition of the OP and Latin naming, just like the aforementioned historical work. (I'm assuming you didn't know this and you apparently don't get it) If it makes you feel better, you can just ignore the twenty-four words before "I. Overture" and pretend they don't exist. So, my use of Latin was extremely sparse but always purposed, intentional, effective, and well-reasoned in its handful of appearances.
The 1st part of my post was not meant to be taken as an insult, I literally meant that you had earned my respect for using such high end vocabulary.
OT:
I am glad that you are open minded enough to discuss legends, and other 343 works, though I share the same sentiments as snakie:
We shouldn't pick and choose canon, only try to give a vague order of it, and try to better understand how it fits together.